User:Roach619/Poverty in Turkey/Dcampos133 Peer Review

General info
Roach619
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Poverty in Turkey
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Poverty in Turkey

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Review
Forgive me for my brutally honest review but, this article seems extremely biased and is written like a call to action. I'm not trying to say that this topic isn't important, but I feel that (in context of our trainings) this would quickly get flagged by other more competent reviewers than I. There are also many (what I am going to assume is accidental) formatting and layout issues. Where are the inline citations and sources? I see that sources are included (vaguely) which means they definitely exist somewhere. However, these are just sandboxes and it's good to learn and fix it here.

Sections are also riddled with "no-no" words such as: Hinder, Overall, Despite, (is) needed, not only, address, requires, urgent, essential, promoting, enhancing, empowering, in conclusion, prosperous, pose, significant, persistent, particularly, influenced, perpetuates, continues, experiencing, despite, inadequate, (there are) gaps, underlying, and I'll stop here roughly 10% into the draft. Not to say that some of the words and phrases above can't exist, but only in certain and special circumstances.

There are also many "(Noun) is a" statements that seem to be constructed claims rather than just facts or referenced statements. However, it appears that throughout the rest of the article and content there is less of this "concerning" language. Also, if an exclamation or question mark exists anywhere on an article outside of a quote or pronoun, please recenter and reconsider what it is we should be doing.

As for the content, there is definitely more than enough. Unfortunately, I can only assume that your content is relevant given the dates but as to the data's validity, there isn't much I can say. I hope that there is a plan to break up these huge chunks of writing into easier to follow sub headers, because so far this article is formatted like an absolute content marathon. With many of the concerns I've addressed, their implementation could substantially reduce the size of these chunks naturally. It's much easier to work backwards from a draft than to work on a draft from the ground up.

Overall you definitely have enough to work with. I have no concerns over anything missing, trust me. However, longer isn't better. There is a lot of fat that can be trimmed here. I do believe that this could make a great addition to the article you are editing. Also consider going through the technical trainings again for help with the links and resources.